Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> 
> Ok, I think you have convinced me that there is a point in updating or
> at least clarifying the registry.

Very good.

> From my perspective I don't see major issues to use all 128 values of PT
> field if needed when doing dynamic allocation and not using RTP/RTCP
> MUX. Yes, I would use the one that collide with SR/RR RTCP packets last,
> but I still would use them. The thing that is getting screwed up are
> classifier filters, not the actual end-points.

This is true.  But it is difficult to express this fact in the table
format of a registry.  My preference is to provide RFC 5761 as the
primary reference for the registry and to mark conservatively PTs 64
to 95 as "reserved".  The careful reader of RFC 5761 can determine
that in the non-RTCP-mux case that the endpoint will not confuse the
endpoints, but that it may confuse network diagnostic elements.

> I also think you should check with IANA if one can touch a closed
> registry at all, or if we are restricted to clarifying notes for the
> registry.

I have sent an inquiry to Gonzalo about this point.

Dale